You are the Head Judge at a competitive REL event.

Players tied 1-1, during game 3 Adam in his mainphase taps out to cast a splinter twin on his pestermite, makes 100000 tokens and attacks Naomi.
Naomi controls a phyrexian unlife that would let her survive the attack, and shows adam an ad nauseam in his hand saying “What a pity”.
Both players pick up their cards.
While filling up the slip the players don't agree on the winner of the third game.
Now they call for a judge, and you start asking questions.
Naomi says showing the ad nauseam she implied she would have won the following turn, while Adam just says he thought Naomi had conceded since she was dead from the attackers.

How would you handle this situation?

If the scoop was simultaneous and there's no way the players can agree on
who the winner of that game was, then the best we can do is declare that
game a draw and proceed to a fourth game.

If this is a hypothetical situation, a universal answer is unlikely! :)
Assuming that this really happened, it's awfully hard to make a ruling on
this situation without more information. I can see quite a few possible
outcomes depending on what I learn from the players. I'd have to ask a
bunch of questions, probably with the two players separated. For example:

To Naomi: What makes Naomi think that Adam conceded this time? In short…
does Naomi *really* believe that Adam scooped…?
To Adam: Did he know about Phyrexian Unlife? Does he know what it does, and
how it interacts with combat damage?

To Both:
How did Adam win previously–was it with a token swarm? If so, did Naomi
scoop? Did Naomi say anything about Unlife? Did Adam say anything to imply
he won? Was anything said about damage?
How did Naomi win previously? Did Adam previously concede when shown Ad
Nauseam?
How quickly have players picked up their decks after the previous games?

I can see ruling that Adam won the game if Naomi ends up admitting she
forgot about Phyrexian Unlife (and that the “What a pity” comment was
essentially a concession).
I can see where I would decide that Naomi is deliberately misrepresenting
the outcome.
I can see ruling that Adam conceded, if he really knew about unlife and
would have conceded to Ad Nauseam.
I can see ruling that Adam knew he hadn't won, and was trying to rush
things.
I can see ruling that this was a draw, especially if this was turn 5 of
extra turns.

Do you have any more information that was gained during the investigation
stages? This seems pretty wide open.



On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Charlotte Sable <
forum-18343-e9c6@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> If the scoop was simultaneous and there's no way the players can agree on
> who the winner of that game was, then the best we can do is declare that
> game a draw and proceed to a fourth game.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/119169/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/18343/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/18343/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>



–
Ab ovo usque ad mala. – Horace

Originally posted by Paolo Ornati:

Naomi says showing the ad nauseam she implied she would have won the following turn, while Adam just says he thought Naomi had conceded since she was dead from the attackers.

Am I the only one who doesn't see a contradiction here?
Maybe I am not aware of some linguistic implications, but doesn't “would have” mean that Naomi didn't even think she'd won, but she was talking about what would have happened if she hadn't been attacked for lethal? Ok, in that case they both forgot about Phyrexian Unlife, but do we care? Naomi made a scooping motion, she told you about what she would have done, implying she didn't actually survive to that point? Maybe I am missing something here, but I see no reason for thinking she had somehow not conceded.

Edit: Ok, so Naomi thinks that Adam conceded? I might have to reconsider my statement on this subject.

Edited Jasper König (May 16, 2015 07:36:46 AM)

It is very relevant who scooped their cards first for this interpretation, or if they did indeed scoop simultaneously, or close enough that neither can tell.

Naomi showing Ad Nauseam and saying “What a pity” is indicative of nothing by itself. That action is not a scooping motion, nor is it a concession. If she did this and then Adam scooped up his cards because he thought she conceded, then that's an unfortunate decision on his part.

I can totally believe that they scooped simultaneously. I can also easily believe that Adam scooped first because he misinterpreted the game state. I suppose it's possible that Naomi scooped first, thinking she'd sufficiently demonstrated that she was going to win, but that seems less likely, though definitely possible.

If they are unclear as to who scooped first, or if they agree they scooped simultaneously, then I see little recourse but to rule the game a draw. However, I think the investigation may well show that one of them scooped first, which is likely to lead to a ruling one player will not like.

Sent from my iPad

it seems to me that naomi believes she proposed a shortcut to cast ad nauseum, draw deck, win Unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I can infer the intent of the shortcut was to bypass a bunch of arithmetic of recording an exact negative life total. I can also infer that no strategic advantage was gained if adam either already played a land for the turn or only had one or less card in hand. If I can determine adam had no responses I would accept the shortcut even though it was poorly communicated.
Edit I believe I am pointing out that adam believes he received a concession whereas naomi believes the game ended. We can determine that naomi did not concede to damage because naomi was aware of phyrexian unlife so unless I determine ad nauseum was revealed to try to provoke this specific result, (i.e, to gain advantage) since both players scooped, the game is over, supporting naomi's version.

Edited Josh Schnepp (May 16, 2015 04:51:52 PM)

In this case, wouldn't you need Adam to have accepted the shortcut?
Den 16 maj 2015 09:13 skrev “josh schnepp” <

@ Josh: The shortcut to ‘one player losing the game’ is not even legal at all. From CR 716 Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure

Originally posted by CR 716.2A:

The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

It is common to scoop to Ad Nauseam if you want to save time and you are sure he will successfully finish you off. This is an action the opposing player has to take. Players cannot shortcut their Ad Nauseam.

I think the way of questioning and the outcome based on this seems clear.

First of all, i'd like to thank everyone who answered.

Originally posted by Jasper König:

Am I the only one who doesn't see a contradiction here?

Aside my poor phrasing, Naomi meant “i was aware of the interaction with combat damage and unlife, i just showed him i got the win”

Justin Miyashiro
It is very relevant who scooped their cards first for this interpretation, or if they did indeed scoop simultaneously, or close enough that neither can tell.

Is this so relevant? So the last one who scoops is the winner? I know this is borderline scenario, but that doesnt seem like a fair thing.

None of you you though spoke about possible penalties and assumed good faith, but what if you are convinced that Adam is missrepresenting what his scoop meant because he saw an opening for a free win from a certain loss?

Originally posted by Paolo Ornati:

Justin Miyashiro
It is very relevant who scooped their cards first for this interpretation, or if they did indeed scoop simultaneously, or close enough that neither can tell.

Is this so relevant? So the last one who scoops is the winner? I know this is borderline scenario, but that doesnt seem like a fair thing.

It is not always relevant (see http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13960/?page=1#post-90061) but how is it unfair in this case?
If Adam scooped first, Naomi can reasonably assume he concedes as she showed how she will win next turn and he's tapped out, so I'd have no problem ruling Naomi wins.
If Naomi scooped first it's a bit trickier. Adam also has to have either forgot about the Unlife, thought it would work differently, or thought that Naomi forgot about the Unlife. Not unreasonable depending on how the intonation of ‘what a pity’ could be interpreted.
Both players here could reasonable think they've won, so if either scooped in reaction to the other's scoop it doesn't seem unfair to rule in that person's favor.

Edited Toby Hazes (May 17, 2015 05:12:24 PM)

I know this isn't the point of the post but if Naomi's intent was to win ‘next turn’ isn't she dead from poison before that anyway?

I'd probably rule a draw - both players interpreted the gamestate differently and neither player was explicit about the end of the game. They both share a responsibility here. I might investigate to ensure no ‘gotcha’ was being played, but assuming no-one is pulling a fast one a draw is where I get to.

The timing of picking up cards seems less relevant here - both players believed the game was over.

Naomi isn't dead because she was dealt “infinite” damage while her life
total was still positive, which means that Unlife's second effect doesn't
apply yet.

Thanks - haven't played with unlife and didn't read it correctly - I may be in Adam's shoes in this scenario :)

And that's why I NEVER scoop before signing entry slips (in CompREL) and encourage players to do that :)